Several weeks ago, Admiral William McRaven publicly chastised President Donald Trump’s decision to revoke the security clearance of John Brennan, a former CIA director and one of the president’s most vociferous critics. Since then, a number of commentaries have insisted that a critical norm governing civil-military relations was violated in the process. Many of these commentaries suggest that doing so was the price paid for speaking out against what they consider abuses of presidential power.

Why does this matter? One, the American public reveres the military to an extent enjoyed by no other institution. Two, commissioned officers, in particular active and former top brass like McRaven, are held in a regard enjoyed by few other professions. Three, McRaven was a Navy SEAL and as the leader of Special Operations Command (SOCOM) was widely credited for the successful operation to eliminate Osama bin Laden in 2011. If the public reveres the military, it practically worships the special operations forces. The success of films and memoirs like American Sniper and the lionization of fallen special operators within the fitness community serve as evidence that when those who have served in elite units speak, folks listen.

McRaven was not criticizing the president over his handling of a single issue. He was questioning the president’s leadership and character. He declared of Trump, “you have embarrassed us in the eyes of our children, humiliated us on the world stage and, worst of all, divided us as a nation.” This criticism goes well beyond what’s typically leveled at presidents by top brass in the military. There’s a big difference between judging one’s actions and one’s person; McRaven did the latter.

When the public sees a military officer of McRaven’s stature judging the president’s character, can the military still be regarded as apolitical? Or has the “cesspool of domestic politics” finally contaminated every last corner of American life? The fact that this debate is unfolding against the backdrop of a highly controversial and deeply unpopular presidency makes the implications all the more unsettling.

It is easy to dismiss concerns by noting that McRaven is retired and therefore speaks only for himself. But this is disingenuous. McRaven’s entire profile is defined by his time in uniform. The same way Colin Powell is remembered less as secretary of state and more as an Army general, McRaven was a Navy admiral, former Navy SEAL, and SOCOM commander. It’s because of those positions that his name carries significant weight both inside and outside the military. Hardly oblivious to his public stature, he likely made his comments knowing they would be taken more seriously than those of someone whose life hasn’t been defined by military service.

Of course, the active, uniformed military still has a lot to lose when speaking openly, as General Stanley McChrystal learned the hard way. But even formal regulations governing free expression among service members may not prevent the military from becoming further politicized. Those who serve, of course, individually hold strong views on various issues, including the president. And while they may be unable to share those views candidly, what is there to prevent others from speaking for them? As law professor Bruce Ackerman observed, “There is ongoing contact between present members of the high command and retired members. They stay silent while the retired members speak out. This is a fundamental challenge to the founding principles of the republic.”

It’s impossible to know whether the views of those like McRaven are in any way representative of the military at large. But if what Ackerman says is true, it means the military can express discontent and disobedience by relying on their comrades on the outside to do the talking on their behalf. And when someone as widely respected and well-connected as McRaven is doing the talking, voices carry. As Susan Hennessey and Mikhaila Fogel of Lawfareassess:

McRaven’s intended audience is not the general public, nor the president to whom this letter is addressed. Rather, McRaven is speaking to a small community of his peers, those who have served in high-ranking national security posts, both in and out of uniform, and have, like McRaven, remained staunchly apolitical.

Admiral McRaven chose to publicly reproach President Trump because he feels the commander-in-chief is a threat to the republic. While it is difficult to expect him to remain silent in the face of what he considers serious wrongs, speaking out is not without second-order repercussions. One example is that the public may increasingly condone members of the military speaking more openly and even engaging in potentially disobedient conduct in the name of rebuking problematic behavior on the part of civilian leaders.

We may already be far down the rabbit hole. The assertion that McRaven has, until recently, “remained staunchly apolitical,” is wrong—McRaven first criticized Trump in February 2017. Even worse, a few elected leaders have gone as far as to irresponsibly encourage disobedience by military officers. Military personnel and government officials who publicly condemn the president are considered heroes, reinforcing the notion of “resistance.”

At least one scholar, Carrie Lee, does not perceive anything inherently suspect about McRaven questioning Trump’s leadership and personality:

The implication here, however, is that McRaven’s expertise from the military is limited to issues on national security—a deeply problematic assertion. U.S. general and flag officers have a vast amount of leadership experience, advanced education in ethics, and decades of professional practice at identifying, cultivating, nurturing, and promoting leaders.

But Lee combats a “deeply problematic assertion” with a problematic implication of her own—that military officers are a standard by which leaders, uniformed or otherwise, ought to be judged. This contributes to an increasingly prevalent perception that the military is morally superior thanks to the values and ethics its members, especially the officers, are imbued with. But the military is a strictly structured, hierarchical, and largely authoritarian institution wielding incredible destructive power at the service of state and society. It is not that the military is morally superior; it is charged with responsibilities that demand an entirely different culture from that of civilians. Civilians enjoy liberty; the military protects it while depriving themselves of it. The suggestion that a military officer who has largely operated in an illiberal environment throughout his career is in any position to judge the leadership of the commander-in-chief, or any civilian, is specious.

This is not to say that military service members, active or retired, should keep their mouths shut and suffer in silence. The military is, after all, a part of society, and all service members eventually become civilians again. But having long belonged to an institution that not only operates on the principle of nonpartisanship but takes pride in it, men and women like Admiral McRaven need to remember they never speak only for themselves. Retired or not, they represent the services and in theory can be penalized for such conduct. There are ways to pass judgment without lowering oneself into the pit of partisan politics.

Donald Trump has certainly aroused debate and introspection about the role of the presidency. The military, however, should never compromise its integrity and become more politicized just because there is a controversial figure occupying the White House. Final judgments on the Age of Trump are up to the American people, and while those who have served can provide valuable insight unavailable from other quarters, such opinions should never be considered more legitimate than those of civilians. Ascribing extra importance to the wisdom of those like McRaven will only exacerbate the notion of moral superiority on the part of the military. It will further grease the slippery slope on which it becomes appropriate for service members to act politically and violate norms of non-partisanship.

It’s all too easy to believe the most powerful man in the world poses the greatest threat to the nation. We would do well to remember, however, that the Trump presidency will, one day, end. Meanwhile, the military will endure as an institution. What sort of institution will it be the day after Trump? If it becomes one in which its relationship with the presidency has become frayed and “listens to its own voice” more than it should, we may not like what we end up seeing in those who swore to protect us from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Edward Chang is a freelance defense, military, and foreign policy writer. His writing has appeared in the National Interest and War Is Boring.

Hide 43 comments

43 Responses to Eroding the Chain of Command by Trashing Trump

I am certainly supportive of the military. And Admiral McRaven is entitled to his views and to voice them. But if his views were not to question the invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan, Meddle and destabilize Syria, Libya, the Ukraine . . . and others. I am going to hold a very tough line to his motives and his ethics with respect to character.

So in appreciating said service to the country.

And if that service includes retired or otherwise raising warnings about the abuse of power and embarrassing situations

the Admiral is a tad late and more than a tad short.

Unfortunately, getting bin Laden after launching two major wars, ten years after the events in question — deeply anti-climatic. and the entirety of the special forces, as much as I love them, have some answers to give as to why it took them so long and how the invasion of Afghanistan was helpful in dealing with Osama bin Laden who killed in Pakistan. we have heard from the CIA, I think. Their excuse should be interesting.

One of the worst vices of Americans (especially but not exclusively the American right) is its reverence for the military. This has led to the military industrial complex involving the country now in a permanent state of unnecessary and un-won wars, un-won because the objective is not victory but profits for the MIC. Anything that undermines this pagan worship of the gods of war is to be welcomed. It has not only morally ruined the country but corrupted Christianity itself.

Well if Trump would act like a POTUS and not like a loud mouth buffoon with the attention span of a three year old than ex-military men like Adm McRaven would not have to speak out. Also remember the US been at war in the Middle East for over 17 years with only an AUMF to justify these illegal wars. And we all know who have to fight them with most of America being AWOL from any of this, while practicing “Sunshine Patroitism” on NFL Sunday. Don’t you think by this many of these military men are starting because of they see is being done in their name.

“There is ongoing contact between present members of the high command and retired members. They stay silent while the retired members speak out. This is a fundamental challenge to the founding principles of the republic.”

What nonsense! I will see your gag on retired officers and raise you with freedom of association. If anything, one of America’s greatest “founding principles” is encouragement for all citizens to participate in the political process. This is why we did not have a “noble” class or special house of the legislature for titled gentry. Sure, we have a somewhat defacto aristocracy of wealth, but is open to even the lowest born, whether 19th century robber baron, 20th century war profiteer and stock speculator, to 21st century tech mogul or reality TV personality.

There are no threats to any natural order from retired military brass, just some discomfort for the oligarchs of Wall Street.

They know histories will be written, because they’ve read those kinds of histories. They know the lasting consequences of dishonor for individual soldiers, for the military as a whole, and for the country it serves.

“against the backdrop of a highly controversial and deeply unpopular presidency”

He’s not popular with me, but I recognize that he is deeply popular with his base, which runs to 40% of all Americans and slightly over half of voters in the key states — that’s how he won, and few of those have reversed their opinions.

Retired military not infrequently speak out and say controversial things such as Col. Lawrence Wilkinson’s comments on our relationship with Israel or Wesley Clark’s spilling the beans on the plan for serial regime change. McRaven is probably a Russophobe, but Trump correctly sees that now that Russia is Christian rather than Communist they do not pose the same threat to us as before. The “international communist conspiracy” was all too real, not some smoke and mirrors conjured up by chickenhawks in a think tank.

“When the public sees a military officer of McRaven’s stature judging the president’s character, can the military still be regarded as apolitical? Or has the “cesspool of domestic politics” finally contaminated every last corner of American life? The fact that this debate is unfolding against the backdrop of a highly controversial and deeply unpopular presidency makes the implications all the more unsettling.”

I propose the answer is self evident. High ranking military professionals are some of the most serious people in society.

Is it possible they see an unhinged, erratic, man-child in command of the most powerful military the world has ever seen, and it concerns them greatly?

“There are ways to pass judgment without lowering oneself into the pit of partisan politics.” There is little evidence this is occurring in any meaningful way.

correct me if I am wrong, but McRaven is retired – McChrystal was not. just as nothing ‘candidate’ Donald Trump said ultimately matters, but EVERYTHING the 45th (or any) POTUS says matters. and finally, “The military, however, should never compromise its integrity and become more politicized just because there is a controversial figure occupying the White House.” really? did you come up with this ‘standard” in January 2017?

It is very wise to be vigilant about this stuff.
A recent article on this site mentioned that 80% of service members had voted for Trump. This information will have reduced anxiety around the country about the possibility of a coup attempt. Obama’s purge of “counter-revolutionary elements” within the military was not nearly as advanced as many would have imagined it to be.
Of course, the bad news is that, among the higher ranks, the Hollywood marxist infestation has been extensive.
On the bright side, it is a lot easier to replace a few generals than to build a whole new army.

There’s quite a big cultural disconnect between the brass and the troops as well. Note Petraeus’ parties and schmoozing with Washington elites and compare that to the boring life of the average Joe. Other generals are no better. This translates to a political disconnect. General Such-and-Such doesn’t want to disappoint Lockheed Martin but Private Snuffy couldn’t care less.

Anecdotally, I still have a couple friends in the Army, and they say that the line units (infantry, artillery, armor etc) absolutely loved him back in ’16 (80%-20% kind of love)- his promise not to invade Syria won him a lot of friends.

A little reminder to Mr Chang in direct contradiction to his ludicrous uninformed assumptions … along with every active and retired military service member in the US .

According to the oath sworn by each and every member of the US military regardless of rank … the primary duty is to serve and defend FIRST and FOREMOST the US Constitution , Bill of Rights and the Citizens of the US to whom the military is beholden to ..

… not the whims of a potentially incompetent and/or incapacitated POTUS .. nor any Chain of Command that may come in conflict with the US Constitution , Bill of Rights etc along with the well being of the Nation and its people

Any other stance places us ( the US ) in the same position Germany’s military leaders found themselves in when Hitler was in power .

e.g. Following the Chain of Command despite the fact that doing so would destroy the country ( History 101 )

Ahhh … history and the facts … as a former mentor / professor so often stated ;

” Inevitably opinion and ideology finds itself crushed under the hard weight of fact and history “

My understanding is that during the election campaign, Trump (and Sanders) were popular among the enlisted and the lower ranking officers, in large part because they ran as “peace” candidates. Or at least Sanders and Trump seemed slightly less enthusiastic about pointless neocon wars.

Whether this has changed since the election, I cannot say. Since his election, Trump has governed not as a non-interventionist, but as a meaner, more reckless and more dysfunctional version of Dubya. While that *should* hurt his reputation, most peoples’ political allegiances are tribal (and therefore slow to change) and not based on rational responses to policy.

Almost by definition, the generals were and are more political. If they sense that the political climate favors the Resistance(tm) politicians, then they’ll be sure to curry favors with them.

It helps that even if the generals are openly insubordinate, any prosecution will lead to a storm of Resistance(tm) support and protest. Therefore, Trump will have to only give the generals orders that they will follow, and think hard before picking any kind of fight.

The fallout from the “transsexual ban” is most instructive. My SWAG is that most generals are at most indifferent to such things, but they knew which way the wind was blowing and openly and very publicly defied Trump’s order.

Trump would likely have been within his rights to prosecute such officers for insubordination. However, this would turn the officers into Resistance(tm) heroes, and as military officers, they were already popular by definition and would get much support from within and without the military. Rather than pick a fight with both the military and the Resistance(tm) over a symbolic issue, Trump had to quietly walk back his order.

By the same token, if Trump appears to be successful and popular, then the generals will want to be associated with him.

Thus far Trump has not gotten us into a new war, nor gotten us involved in a war we were not already involved in when he took office. Every President after Jimmy Carter has done one or the other or both. If he persists in that inaction, the generals will have fewer resume-enhancing combat assignments, and there could be downward pressure on the military’s budget. Could those be reasons for the generals’ dislike of Trump? Color me cynical.

JeffK describes Trump (I assume) as: “an unhinged, erratic man-child”. That description fits John Brennan at least as well as Trump. Have you read the stuff he says to his fawning media? That guy is nuts and doesn’t need a security clearance. It was always a courtesy, never a law. Courtesies can be revoked.

Though I understand the author’s feelings on high level military men speaking out against a sitting president, we are in precarious times with our federal political infrastructure.

Members of our military services have to be reeling with their own sense of panic as they watch a completely, mentally-ill buffoon rampage all over allies and foe alike.

As a result, I was expecting such open rebukes of the president to occur at all levels in our military organizations. I am just surprised that it has not happened sooner.

Like some who read the American Conservative, I follow our interactions with Russia and President Putin’s responses very closely. I have been doing this for years as one who is a student of military history and analysis. The picture is becoming increasingly grim and most of it is due to Trump’s involvement with his ally, Israel in Syria.

Right now, two articles have appeared out of Russia (one is a translation of a Russian piece at Fort-Russ and the second is a corroborating piece by Israel Shamir who often reports out of Moscow.

This information is reporting on the move of President Putin and his cabinet to a “war footing” as a result of the Israeli Syrian attack that caused a Russian IL-20 AWACS aircraft to be incorrectly targeted by Syrian Air Defenses.

All of this has a lot to do with Israeli arrogance, feelings of superiority to all those around it, and its incessant attacks on its neighbors. However. all of this has been supported by the President’s allowance of his son-in-law, Jared Kushner and his associates, to encourage Israeli intransigence, while the US ambassador to Israel, Benjamin Friedman, is an Israel-Firster and adamant supporter of Zionist interests and well being over everything else.

No doubt such moves by Russia in Syria; especially the recent deliveries of S-300 missile defense systems among other immediate upgrades to Syrian defenses has seriously rattled US military members at very high echelons and they are just coming to realize that such reactions by other nations are no longer ones that fit within their wheelhouse of antagonism to lesser countries.

Even NATO senior commanders are in some level of panic mode as they have already openly admitted that Russian military systems and units simply can no longer be defeated by the West in any theater type.

In short, the world is moving in baby steps (but increasingly more rapidly) to WWIII and believe it or not President Putin has been doing everything in his power to avoid such a conflict, no matter what our mentally challenged 6-year old president does.

So to begin complaining that senior military men are beginning to open their mouths may be a sign of actual health at some level in a society that has gone completely off the rails sociologically.

There is no doubt in my mind that President Putin, elements in his military forces and US military elements have been working together for some time to pull the plug on the US federal government if and when things get so bad that the warning sirens begin to go off.

It would be his own realistic last resort before an all out conventional war in the Mid East brings the world to the edge of the abyss from which there is no turning back.

As a result, I hope more military men break protocol and speak their minds because this may be the only way the world may avoid what is fast becoming the inevitable…

While I am very queasy about a military ‘soft coup’, I certainly hope they will disobey an order to be the first to launch a nuclear war.
So far Trump has not shot at anything except to shoot his mouth off. I pray it stays that way.

We already have an example of a Russian colonel who saved the world from nuclear war by disobeying orders.

The rules are simple. A retired military officer is a civilian, and has full rights of free speech. Period.

A serving officer’s duty is to carry out all lawful orders he/she receives. If said officer feels such orders are unlawful, they are required by their oath to refuse to carry them out. If they disagree with lawful orders (for personal or political reasons), they must either resign their commission or carry them out.

Edward Chang seems to hate the First Amendment. There is nothing in the Constitution that gags a private citizen, even a member of the military. Indeed, they often have better knowledge of a situation than the average voter.

JeffK describes Trump (I assume) as: “an unhinged, erratic man-child”. That description fits John Brennan at least as well as Trump. Have you read the stuff he says to his fawning media? That guy is nuts and doesn’t need a security clearance. It was always a courtesy, never a law. Courtesies can be revoked.”

I have read and seen some of Brennan’s opinions and words. Whatever.

I have seen, too many times, the immature, impulsive, thoughtless, and stupid utterances, tweets, and actions of POTUS.

Brennan is a bit player. Trump is the man-child-in-chief of the most powerful military the world has ever seen.

Let us not forget that it was Obama that politicized the military. Obama purged the military leadership of generals that were identified as being or leaning to the right (ie republican, conservative) so once again the tentacles of legacy Clinton Administration appointees, Hillary Clinton and legacy Obama Administration appointees are putting their politics against job and their country.

I have no doubt that President Trump has more purging than the FBI, the Justice Department, the IRS, the State Department, the Department of Education and yes the Military / Defense Department…possibly even more.

The damage and corruption and collusion as we are finding out is breathtaking in depth and scope. It took 16 years between the Bill Clinton Administration and the Obama Administration to put these people in place. 24 years if one includes the neocons/neoliberal warmongering globalists in the Bush Administration which were also common to the Clinton and Obama Administrations. REMEMBER TRUMP IS NOT JUST A DEPARTURE BUT IN MANY CASES A FULL SCHISM (FRACTURE) FROM BILL CLINTON, BUSHII AND OBAMA ADMINISTRATIONS. IT WILL TAKE MORE THAN 2 YEARS TO MAKE A DENT IN 16-24 YEARS THAT THE PRIOR ADMINISTRATIONS BUILT UP AND PUT IN PLACE.

“. One example is that the public may increasingly condone members of the military speaking more openly and even engaging in potentially disobedient conduct in the name of rebuking problematic behavior on the part of civilian leaders.”

This is a ridiculous assertion that ignores the fact that McRaven is a CIVILIAN. He is not a “member of the military” anymore. If the public leaps to the conclusion you describe above, that is 100% the public’s fault. He is setting no such example of MEMBERS OF THE MILITARY doing anything.

we are not in precarious times, for those who think we are, because of president Trump. He inherited the world made prior to his arrival.

The Admiral has every right to speak. But it is the content that will concern me. And thus far, his whining about being embarrassed is just that.

laugh.

The US has plenty of embarrassing moments and plenty of instances in which executives have embarrassed. Which brings us back to the central point. The policies that led here are an embarrassment and matter far more than the caterwauling about this attribute or that attribute by those that are part of the “never Trump”

This has everything to do with upsetting the agenda, which by all accounts has not been upset by much. When Congress was clamoring for torture — I am not sure I head the Admiral’s voice. When we invaded Iraq for no reason upending any integrity the country congress or the pres had and needless risking the lives of US service men, I would be curious if the Admir. sent the president a note with the following:

strategically unwise and unethical.

I am curious if the Admiral sent a note to Sec Clinton advising her that making Libya unstable was strategically unwise — i am unclear here sure the snoop and poop role of special forces should have made that the Libyan government was squashing a rebellion and not killing civilians randomly – or were the special forces so politically in bed with the policy they gave no long term thought to the dangers of a destabilized greater middle east might pose to the region — encouraging terrorists as opposed to ridding the region.

Concern for the country — well, complaining about president Trump is an attempt to the lay blame on the sent in to deal with everyone else’s mess.

A practiced art among the politically astute in DC.

Appreciate the admiral’s service.
_________________

“McRaven is probably a Russophobe, but Trump correctly sees that now that Russia is Christian rather than Communist they do not pose the same threat to us as before.”

“There is no doubt in my mind that President Putin, elements in his military forces and US military elements have been working together for some time to pull the plug on the US federal government if and when things get so bad that the warning sirens begin to go off.”

I would expect that foreign countries spy on the US. But your accounting above is only missing one piece. but it an important piece nonetheless.

The final stage of empire is the elevation of war above all else. The military-industrial complex, directed by its Wall Street globalist commanders now enjoy an oversized importance to the over financialized economy and that empire’s interests dwarf domestic public ones, because the empire is many times larger than the so-called “homeland.” Empire makes of the military the penultimate power, subject only to financialist hegemony.

From an ethical standpoint though, warmaking is mankind’s development of the most distilled form of absolute evil. The judgment of those who have embraced it is poison to civilian democratically accountable government, resulting in either a hard dictatorship, or a seemingly “softer” Deep State managed illusionary democracy.

McRaven – and all retired soldiers – are not 100% “civilian”. They are officially on the Retired Reserve rolls, and are subject to recall. As such, they are not entirely free from these considerations, even if they are not subject to UCMJ.

There have been a few legal cases that tested this, and to my knowledge the end result is that they are basically free to say what they want. This does not preclude having a reasonable debate on what is appropriate for them to say or not say, especially the highest ranking leadership

I can fully appreciate your entire essay. Trump does distress me greatly, but I do not want to see our traditions eroded because of him. And yes, that includes our military respect or at least acquiescence of civilian authority.

What your column lacks is any reasonable alternatives. Should they ask for closed door hearings with the Senate? Should they write anonymous articles to the New York Times?

And what of this? The conservatives drooled over the idea of Colin Powell running for President. What if in 2020, a distinguished General decides to challenge Trump in the primary, or like Wesley Clark decides to run as a Democrat?

Yes, you have a rational perspective, but you provide no alternative. Until there is a strong consensus for an alternative, I think the retired military should speak out. Perhaps when doing so, they should go the extra mile to dissociate their remarks with the military.

” Final judgments on the Age of Trump are up to the American people” Not quite. Since the American people do not elect their President (2000 and 2016 show clearly that somebody else does) there exists no constitutional forum whereby the American people might ever pronounce a “judgment” on the president chosen to rule them.

This is pure hyperbole. McRaven was simply offering some constructive criticism. We can take or reject it as it is. Perhaps having a business empire you’re the center of with nobody else to be accountable to was not good training for Trunp. Trump and his sycophants on Fox and Rush and Infowars don’t get it that this country is not a one man show. We need a variety of ideas to help govern a variety of people. Trump is not the center of this universe and can never be akin to what he was in his organization for the whole country.

He needs to be aware that there are totally legitimate criticism and accountabilities he must be subject to; just like the rest of us.

McRaven retired well over 2 full years before Trump was elected president, over 1 full year before Trump even announced his candidacy. There is no “chain of command” to “erode” as the title falsely implies. McRaven has not been in ANY chain of command since 2014. By this article’s logic, General Ulysses S Grant was undermining the republic by making political statements during his candidacy in 1868. How about retired General Eisenhower? He wasn’t supposed to criticize the Truman administration while trying to become its successor? Maybe the author could have thought this one over a little more before publishing.

As a retired senior officer, I read his remarks as motivated by sincere fear for our national defense because we have a president who is not at all leading. Trump’s only concern seems to be placating his shrinking political base, and “faking” legitimacy as a competent (“genius”?) president. Trump sees Russia as “no big deal” because he cannot be bothered to read his own intelligence briefings that show otherwise.

Almost daily, Trump says or does something that weakens us tactically or strategically in the world. It is no stretch for those of us who spent our adult lives protecting the Republic to be frustrated that our commander in chief is actively (if unwittingly) undermining it.

“Admiral William McRaven publicly chastised President Donald Trump’s decision to revoke the security clearance of John Brennan, a former CIA director and one of the president’s most vociferous critics.”

Retired/former senior government officials run in the same influential circles as their active/current counterparts. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t have been extended the “courtesy” of retaining their high-level security clearances. If they don’t abide by the same standards as their counterparts, then this courtesy and all others extended for the same reason should be revoked. The President was right in revoking this courtesy to the former CIA Director. That the former SOCOM Commander publicly criticized the President for exercising his authority has more to say about his own politicization than the actions of the President.

Ernest Hemingway pointed out most generals die in battle rather than on the battlefield. But since my tour of duty in Vietnam as a medical corpsman, I’ve been a card-carrying cynic when it comes to elites, especially, the military brass. They’re just corporate suits, and the military/industrial complex is merely another multinational corporation. Of course, you are correct most civilians hold the military in high regard. But they never saw them up close and personal, and this adoration of them fades quickly when you see them up close and personal. So your “Seven-Days-in-May” scenario about a possible coup d’etat against President “Bone Spurs” is melodramatic when it comes to the brass. The brass are worried more about their pension checks and are as docile and subservient as the men that they command when it comes to moral leadership. I would also include myself. The only thing I learned in Vietnam is that I’m a hard-core civilian and I really love indoor plumbing.